President Obama is reelected with a mandate and Women make history in many ways!

President Obama loves and respects women and girls, most re-tweeted photo ever!

The idea that the Presidential race was going to be a very close one has planted a false impression in the minds of many US voters. It turns out that (even with some popular votes remaining to be counted in the electoral dysfunctional state of Florida, President Barack Obama gained 332 electoral votes to Mitt Romney’s 206 votes and the count for the popular vote was Obama 51% and Romney 48%.

“Those victories—more than three million popular vote, 332 electoral votes—are bigger than what John Kennedy came in with, bigger than what Richard Nixon came in with, bigger than what Jimmy Carter came in with, and bigger than what George Bush had in 2000 or what George Bush had in 2004. And I’ll remind folks that after that 2004 election, George Bush stood before the American people and said he put his platform out there, the people had embraced it, and he had political capital to spend. I think it’s very, very vital that President Obama understand that he has not scraped his way to victory here. He has got a win, and he ought to take that populist language, that progressive language of the close of his campaign, and make it much more central to his politics.”

It’s clear that in his first term our 44th President has been a centrist rather than the progressive that many of his supporters would have liked to see. That means that the portions of the electorate that combined to provide his victory this month will need to really push him to provide the changes that our democracy needs to thrive and remain a part of the global economy and community. But more about that in a future article.

What I wanted to write about in this article was one such group that voted in large numbers for President Obama [55% of all women voters— and nearly 67% of single women.] The distaff demographic also made historic gains in national and state elections.

This is particularly satisfying in the face of what many women perceived as a renewed attack on women’s health and reproductive rights by the Republican Party. Six specific incumbents and candidates who were defeated after particularly egregious remarks were Rep. Todd Akin MO, Senatorial candidate. Richard Mourdock, IN, State Rep. Roger Rivard, WI, Rep. Joe Walsh, IL, and House candidates Tom Smith, PA, and John Koster, WA. Representative Paul Ryan, WI won reelection to the House but lost the VP bid.

New Yorker writer Margaret Talbot summed things up succinctly: “If there was a war on women this year, it looks like the women are winning.”

You can read more details in an almost comprehensive article on Time.com but I’ll summarize some of the most pertinent details in the rest of this article.

Let’s begin with the US Senate. All of the incumbent women Senators who ran for re-election in 2012 kept their seats. Although Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Kay Bailey Hutchison, of Texas, retired from the Senate a bumper crop of new women were elected bringing the number of women in the Senate up to 20, a new record [although 1/5 representation of more than a majority of US voters is still not very good.]

Mazie Hirono of Hawaii: the second woman of color and the only Asian American woman ever elected to the U.S. Senate. Photo by Rebecca Breyer, AP

Some of the other firsts included the election of the first Asian American Senator and the first woman Senator from Hawaii, who is also a Buddhist, Mazie Hirono, Tammy Baldwin, the first Wisconsin female Senator and also the first openly gay US Senator, Heidi Heitkamp, the first woman Senator from North Dakota, Deb Fischer the first full term woman Senator from Nebraska, and Elizabeth Warren, the first Massachusetts woman Senator.

US Senator Tammy Baldwin, photo by Andy Manis, AP

Then there is the House of Representatives where the Republicans continue to hold a majority with 233 votes to 194 for the Democrats.

Barbara Lee one of the most progressive women Representatives is re-elected to the House

There has been a notable change in the composition of US Representatives. Several Blue Dog Democrats, all men, did not run this year and several Tea Party Republicans lost their seats. Several very progressive peace and justice candidates were elected to the House as well. The new Congress will have the largest number of incoming female House members since 1992 including a record number of 28 women of color with more Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.

Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii is a military veteran and the first Hindu American to serve in Congress. She will join Representative Tammy Duckworth her sister veteran and the first Asian American Representative of Illinois.

Illinois Representative,Tammy Duckworth, first Asian American Representative from Illinois, photo from Wiki commons

Finally the very independent and often innovative State of New Hampshire has elected an all woman delegation to Congress and a woman Governor as well. New Hampshire is currently the only state to have a woman Governor. The Granite State also made history in 1999 when it became the first US State to have a woman governor, senate president and house speaker all in the same year.

This year Governor Maggie Hassen will be joined by U.S. Senators, Jeanne Shaheen (D.) and Kelly Ayotte (R.), and Representatives Carol Shea-Porter and Ann McLane Kuster.

New Hampshire Women make history with Governor and Congressional Delegation in 2012 election

Hopefully with this addition of many women to the US Congress the attempts of the previous Congress to roll back women’s health care choices, equality of pay and employment opportunities, and reproductive rights will be stopped and the new healthcare laws will be able to roll out smoothly to provide more coverage to all people in the US.

With two women veterans in the House it’s likely that care for returning veterans will be increased and improved as well. The women united will never be defeated!

23 Responses

The 2012 Presidential election is history, and Barack Obama has been re-elected to serve a second term as OUR President. As has been our long established habit, idiologs, special interests and zealots, up and down the entire length and breadth of the political spectrum, will try mightily to bend, manipulate and push statistics to support their chosen agenda items.

Perhaps the first such assertion is that this election produced a mandate, of any sort. A “win” is most certainly a win and provides the President with a measure of wind in the sails of his agenda, that is far more accurately described as a breeze, than a gale. So many of the issues at stake are split almost directly down the middle, suggesting the ultimate course for success is far more central and dependent on cooperation and consensus to be lasting and succesful.

The “War on Women” was without doubt a successful campaign slogan and an effective campaign tactic, but the notion that American women are at war with American men, given some thought and serious consideration, should be seen as an exaggeration, that if seriously considered, would be a never ending war that could never produce a winner. Increased interest, participation and perhaps most of all perspective by and of American women in political matters has proven to provide a beneficial influence on American political issues for several generations, and will likely continue to do so indefinitely.

As is true with so many matters, the relationship between men and women focusing on mutual respect, cooperation, negotiating and reaching mutual agreement has proven far more successful and beneficial than dictates in either direction. There should be no serious doubt that as a species, humans do far better when the perspectives of both women and men blend together to create consensus.

Focusing only on the percentages of female versus male representation is a fool’s pursuit. One area the genders share an absolute balance with is that a poorly selected female representative can do just as much harm and damage as a poorly selected male representative. The primary objective in selecting our leaders must remain as “quality” regardless of wheter it’s wrapped in a female or male envelope.

“Albert J.” Please re-read the article. No one is suggesting that “American women are at war with American men.” What was referenced in my article was the war on women that seemed to be declared by some Republican candidates during the primaries and in the Republican platform. That was what women voters responded to. The idea that some Republican politicians were trying to further limit women’s health care options and reproductive choices. That they opposed equal pay for equal work and laws to protect that right and that they said clearly that they were going to repeal the new health care laws that provided for non-discrimination against women in the areas of screening for certain illnesses and for insurance premiums and preexisting conditions. Laws which greatly benefit women in particular and which are already in effect.

By changing the subject you argue something that was not the topic of the article at all!

Here’s an important update on the final topic of “Women Make History in Many Ways” where I referred to the health and benefits for current and returning veterans as something that women veterans in the House might take a special interest in.

As it happens, this morning in a special Veteran’s Day program Democracy Now! ran two very pertinent segments about the lack of accurate determinations of benefits and the need for much improved and comprehensive care for those returning from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here’s the description of each segment, and the links to read, listen or watch these segments:

Journalist Aaron Glantz questions the government’s commitment to soldiers struggling to re-enter civilian life. In a new report, Glantz tells the story of Navy veteran Hosea Roundtree whose claim for disability compensation was denied by the VA despite Roundtree suffering flashbacks of a shelling he witnessed in Beirut while aboard a U.S. Navy ship in 1983.

We talk to former advisor to Joint Chiefs of Staff and retired Brigadier General Stephan Xenakis. He is concerned about the treatment given to many of the 2.5 million U.S. soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan when they return home. He tells Democracy Now!,”It takes as much time and energy for a young person to come back and then get into a different routine as it did to prepare and train them to go to war.”

If it’s accuracy you are seeking, Mickie Lynn, you might rethink your criticism. I acknowledged the success of the “War on Women” although as you so elequently point out it was based on false threats and misinformation. If not American men, who exactly was it that was accused of waging a War on Women?

The notion that the Republican Party intended to, or was conspiring to, “to further limit women’s health care options and reproductive choices” was carefully crafted, and successfully planted rhetoric. Other than reconsidering what has evolved into “abortion on demand”, for pure convenience which concerns a significan majority of American women, the reality of a War on Women is little more than very effective, but imaginary and fraudulent hyperbole.

There was little, if any opposition to equal pay for men or women doing the same job, although the notion of trying to equate different jobs to equal importance and therefore equal pay scales, as determined by government edict, was considered by many a giant step in the wrong direction. The issue of mandated contraceptive provision trumping religious belief is an issue far from settled and risks far more reduction in provided services to women’s health issues than it enhances.

Opposition to Obama Care was serious and based on a number of counter productive, major inherent elements that are likely to produce exactly the opposite results than advertised and in reality will cause draconian changes in medical insurance coverage in the American workplace, raise, rather than lower the skyrocketing costs of medical care overall while dramatically lowering the availability of the current instant access to medical services. I’m not aware of a single politician who favored eliminating the prohibition against “preexisting conditions” or some of the other, few, universally accepted improvements included in the plan, that could have been provided far more economically and and consistently with well thought out alternatives.

Far from changing the subject, the notion that this election produced any sort of mandate, other than an almost universal demand for cooperation in considering all options for solutions producing consensus, rather than ill advided dictates and mandates from one side of the political spectrum, seems a figment of your imagination.

In line with Mickie’s views of women in elective office, I think it shows a broadening and maturing of the electorate and the population that women are ready to take on the task of running for office and that voters are ready to take them seriously. It is not about voting for a woman because she is a woman…although goodness knows it might be understandable because we got enough poor candidates in the days when men were voted for because they were men…it is about inclusiveness on many levels and the seeking of competence in many arenas.

Therefore I am happy that in the new state of my own choice, Hawaii, as local columnist Richard Borreca of the “Hawaii Star Advertiser” writes: “we have a congressional delegation that consists mostly of women and, I am sure, the only congressional delegation with a non-Christian majority.”

Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa and Senator-elect Mazie Hirono are Buddhists and Tulsi Gabbard is Hindu. Senator Inouye is a Methodist.

There also have been articles here in the local paper about homelessness in general and homelessness among veterans in particular. There are programs working to alleviate this kind of suffering and more apparently needs to be done in a number of areas.

It may be true that some of the women recently elected will push for better and more rational services….to supplement some efforts the military is already making in areas of suicide prevention and mental health. I think the real point though, is that the public needs to get behind the efforts and insist that the bureaucracy not only be properly funded but also streamlined so that it makes better sense and is more accessible to those in need.

Did the overall electoral results suggest that folks in general understand you have to spend money to make money? That you have to invest in human as well as material capital?

And, yes, in deed, we do have plenty of money in this country. It just remains to be put to better use.

Linda thanks for your comment from your new home state of Hawaii. There is certainly a group of interesting women including a new Senator and Representatives just elected as the new Congressional delegation along with long term Senator Daniel Inouye.

Thank you also for addressing the suffering of the poor including thousands of poor and homeless veterans. You also understood the spirit of the “mandate” that I was referring to. John Nichols describes it much better in this article for those who want to read more details of his premise:

Mickie. Well said. The landscape is changing, much for the better. The near dominance of a limited perspective is the primary reason why slavery persisted so long in this country, why women didn’t even have the right to vote for the much of our history, why genocide of Native Americans was once a policy of our government. Change, though encouraging, is slow and painful. Two steps forward (Obama’s election victories), one step back (Tea Party and the 2010 elections). So it goes. But the changes that are unfolding now, albeit in fits and starts, are inevitable in light of the changing demographics (yeah, I am sick of hearing that word!). And as this change occurs, the predictable rationalizations, the denial, the finger-pointing, are trotted out by the same old sources, be it talk radio, print media, TV, and even blog commenters. You gotta admit, it’s entertaining to see Fox News morph into a surreal “unreality” show.

Michael, Thank you for your supportive comment with its nod to the historical struggles (still continuing) that have been ongoing in the US. Your references reminded me of the community event that took place this past Friday night — A reading from The People’s History of the United States, written by the late, outstanding historian Howard Zinn. This series of speeches by some of the leaders and rebels who struggled for the rights of the oppressed from the time of Christopher Columbus through the early years of the 21st century highlights the fact that we are still fighting for some of the same freedoms for our most oppressed and neglected citizens and residents. We can only hope that we keep moving in a positive direction.

“Albert J.” referencing the same historical and ongoing issues documented in Voices from a People’s History: When you made your most recent comment this morning about the irrelevance of being represented by either a man or a woman in Congress you conveniently left out the relatively recent struggles of the suffragettes to vote at all. You also ignored the historical barriers to women in positions of influence and power that are only slowly being overcome in the United States.

That’s why there are only 20 women out of 100 US Senators, and an even more daunting ratio of women Representatives in Congress and in State and local offices. So if we were to truly judge our candidates by their actual qualifications as “good leaders” leaving out the bias against women in public office then the proportions would be changing more rapidly than they are. Still, the hopeful fact is that they are changing and that as more women gain experience and qualifications through holding such positions the changes will accelerate. This more proportional representation that includes women and other underrepresented groups will benefit all of us as a more just and more peaceful nation.

There isn’t any doubt, or denial, Mickie Lynn, that we have all been exposed to far too many “empty suits” and sadly there is rarely a shortage of poorly constructed, or downright stuipd, comments that are uttered by politicians in the heat and frenzy of political campaigns.

Unfortunately for all of us, there is little difference between an empty suit and an “empty skirt”, either of which can cause enormous damage, given the right opportunity. What we need is good leaders, who very likely exist in both genders, and the savy and judgment of an electorate who can recognize true substance from too much emphasis on sizzle.

Here’s a very articulate and direct letter to President Obama written by Bertha Kriegler, a member of Grannies for Peace and Schenectady Neighbors for Peace. I think that it reflects the spirit of the demands that we need to make on President Obama in his work on the economic solutions for our country.

Dear President Obama,

Congratulations on your re-election. You now have a mandate for change.

Those who supported and voted for you were not the banks or Wall Street, but the poor and middle class. Do not betray them by capitulating to the demands of the Republicans whose main goal for 2012 was your defeat.

Do not cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. These are important and successful programs that have protected our seniors from penury. Do not be taken in by the “Fiscal Cliff”. These programs were not responsible for the deficit. The tax cuts for the wealthy and the ability of the wealthy and corporations to hide their money in overseas accounts, as well as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are responsible for the deficit.

From experience we know that austerity is not a job creator, but a jobs loser. We need to cut the military budget and use those funds to put people to work fixing our crumbling infrastructure. Our railroads are a shame compared to most other countries, Do we need to have a bridge crumble and people lose their lives before we do needed repairs?
Stand tall, we the people will stand with you.

Another important factor related to seeing women (and minorities) achieve positions of power through their own efforts and competencies is that of role model for younger people.

In my day, I only knew of Oveta Culp Hobby and Clare Boothe Luce. These women held positions of national significance but they were a tiny few and Luce seemed to be able to leverage achievements on the back of a prominent husband. Eleanor Roosevelt did influence public opinion by force of personality, by choosing significant causes, and by being married to the right guy. But she was also condemned as speaking out of turn and she held no official office.

I grew up pretty much seeing my future job prospects as being that of teacher, nurse or book editor! I didn’t even picture myself as a school administrator. And all that despite the fact that my schools had many clubs and class office positions that were held as much by females as males, and I held office in a couple of clubs myself. I just didn’t picture these experiences extending out to the big picture in society.

Today’s young people have a better, more diverse selection of role models.

I thought you were all upset about those Drone attacks Qbama killed folks with. I am glad lots of qualified folks won elections, if they are qualified. I don’t give a tinkers damn if they are men, women, asian, hispanic, or any other ethnic group. This country will be mature when you regressives stop worrying about gender and ethnicity of candidates and merely cheer for those whose policies, and character you support. I realize that more should have served in the past but, that is not my fault as I always voted for policy and character reasons. When Qbama got indignant today when asked about the Susan rice lie to the media about Benghazi, I realized that Qbama reminds me most of Nixon with his paranoia expressed best by Qbama with false indignity. Susan Rice gave patently false info to the press and Qbama says the press can’t question that? Betcha Qbama has an “enemies list” just like Nixon did.

Peter,
Here’s what I wrote as part of a comment on the Muslim Women’s blog on November 7th. It addresses some of the other issues where we the people will need to put a lot of pressure on the President whom we re-elected.

So yes, drones are very important but this particular article focused on what the effects of more women representing us in Congress and in state and local offices might mean for those policies that directly affect women and their families.

…As a sister peace advocate I believe that our work starts from today to push re-elected President Obama to move in a positive and people (not corporation) affirming direction on the issues that you mentioned:

[Stopping the aggression against Afghanistan, truly ending US interference in Iraq, closing Guantanamo and helping to stop the massacre in Syria, which will require international cooperation and an end of the flow of arms to the opposition as well as to Assad.]

In addition he needs to stop extrajudicial assassinations by drone, and violation of the civil rights and rights to privacy of US citizens, especially Muslims and activists. Then there’s the matter of negotiating in good faith to prevent war with Iran, the removal of Minuteman III missiles from hair trigger alert and the further draw down of our nuclear arsenal in cooperation with the Russians.
Finally he needs to preserve Social Security and Medicare while allowing the bloated Defense budget to be cut and the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share of both Federal taxes and payroll taxes. At the same time he needs to hold the banksters and other large, criminally negligent financial institutions responsible for their actions and stop the continuous theft of our national and personal resources.

That’s a tall order but perhaps with our pressure and support and his assurance of another 4 year term we can see at least a start on those accomplishments.

And right now given the war mongering, murderous actions of the right wing Israeli government under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu we also need to add the tying of any financial and military support for Israel to compliance with International law, and human rights and decency towards those that a nation occupies.

I don’t dislike Obama however, although you are “gloating” over the Obama victory, financial doom is on the horizon and taxing the rich won’t make a dent in the problem. Obama is a spender, the country has turned into makers and takers. I wonder how “joyful” you will be when the country goes bankrupt due to this president’s tax and spend policies………….

Hello Mark, Thank you for your comment. You might want to re-read the article — and especially my most recent comment in the discussion if you think that I’m “gloating” over President Obama’s reelection. I couldn’t help noticing that your comment originated from Florida, a state where the elections were particularly flawed in many ways.
Anyhow, I am glad that Mitt Romney didn’t win because his domestic and foreign policy advisers and ideas were truly horrible — but as I said in the article we have a lot of work to do if we’re going to truly provide economic justice and growth at home, along with a decent and humane foreign policy for our country.

I disagree that austerity would bring economic growth to the United States, nor would a bloated military budget or another war, or cuts in the safety net for the millions that are currently suffering. We do need more revenue and we also need many more jobs, some of which need to provide social services and some of which need to focus on improving our aging infrastructure and providing a living wage to all workers. And it’s just plain lies that we need to cut the earned income benefits to cut our deficit.

To return to the subject of women’s financial well being. At the moment women (many of whom are the single heads of families) still earn only 77 cents, or less depending on location and ethnicity, to every man’s dollar for the same jobs. That amounts to a loss of family income that averages out to about $12,000 each year. That money could go a long way towards providing rent, food, and other consumer goods that would in turn provide more jobs and a growing economy.

Here’s the article that I was really searching for, although the other one that I linked to in the previous comment is also pretty good. Albert J. this one’s for you! [Be sure to read the whole article]:

ForbesWoman , Jenna Goudreau
4/17/2012 @ 1:03PM

Today, Women Need To Demand Equal Pay

Today on Equal Pay Day, which highlights the extra 108 days women would need to work to earn what men earned in 2011, it’s time to face the reality that the laws put in place to bar gender-based wage discrimination in the U.S. are not working.

Nationally, women who work full time are paid just 77 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts. African-American women are paid 62 cents, and Latinas are paid just 54 cents for every dollar paid to men. The gap has been closing at a rate of less than half a cent per year since the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1963, according to nonprofit advocacy group The National Partnership for Women & Families. At this rate, women’s pay will not catch up to men’s for another 40 years.[…]

“Economic justice” as you put it spells socialism. Capitalism is a nasty word to liberals I get that but it is our system. Obama will drive the country off the cliff with his economic policies. This is niether a republican or democrat issue nor is it a liberal or conservative issue, it’s an economic certainty.

I am glad that women are reaching economic equality, I think that’s great! I have worked with women and even for women most of my life and have no issue with that however, any economist will tell you financially we are in serious trouble.

The presidents tax an spend policies in the name of “fairness” only prove he is more of a class warfare than economic growth.

Obama’s policies of getting more that 40% of the country on government programs is strategic. The more people you have dependent, the more will vote for you as proven in the last election.

By the way, what does living in Florida and the election issues have to do with my comment on economics?

Mark, The problem in the United States right now isn’t “Capitalism.” Unfortunately it’s become “Corporatism” a form of capitalism run amok with no regulation — and the control of the government, the media and the electoral process increasingly in the hands of the few (2% or so) of wealthy individuals and the global corporations.

You use the word Socialism as if it’s some kind of evil but it turns out that most of the happiest, most prosperous nations in the world are those that practice a form of multi-party, democratic socialism. This means that there is private enterprise and capitalism but the needs of the people are also provided for through a tax system that supports social services for all. There is also universal health care, decent maternity and parental leave, child care and other things that make life worth living for all people, not just the wealthy.

In a recent interview with Tavis Smiley and Dr. Cornell West, who have written a book titled “The Rich and the Rest of US” here’s part of what Cornell West had to say on the subject of poverty :

I have much more about the level of poverty currently present in the United States where about Twenty-two percent of our precious children of all colors live in poverty in the richest nation in the history of the world. That’s obscene and profane. No serious talk about it. Now, in the black community, it’s nearly 40 percent; in red, 40 percent; brown, nearly 40 percent of the children.[…]

He went on to say that the US ranks 34th out of 35 of the top industrial countries when it comes to child poverty, ahead only of Romania.

In part two of the interview, here’s what Tavis Smiley had to say:

…Yet, a new report is warning global inequality has reached a 20-year high. According to the group Save the Children, poverty, that had previously been concentrated in the world’s lowest-income countries, is now on the rise in middle-income countries, which account for 70 percent of the world’s poor. […]

So it’s not enough to simply stick a label on an economic system because within each system there are many variations and some are much more successful than others. But the idea of “economic justice” is a universal one that can be applied under many different economic models to affect a country’s population and well being in different ways.

During the many years of this blog there are 11 pages of articles that come under the category of “economic justice.” Here are just a few that you could read to get a better idea of what we are talking about:

Those darn Israelis, you shoot at them and they have the nerve to shoot back. Ain’t gonna be no Holocaust II folks. You progressives can dream of it but, Israel will nuke the whole middle east if it is going down. Soon we will be oil independent unless Qbama finds a way to mess it up. So if we can’t get Iranian pistachio nuts cause they are radioactive, oh well.

Ah Peter M. Your rant is exactly what Bibi Netanyahu and his warmongering bunch of right wing politicians wish to see happen in the Middle East, and all for cynical political reasons, not out of necessity.

Unfortunately President Obama is buying the artificial timeline that the Israeli propaganda machine is manufacturing to excuse this murderous attack on a captive occupied population. And after we keep sending billions of our tax dollars for weapons and to prop up the settlement economy, and constantly put the United States on the wrong moral side of history by running interference for Israel’s cruel and inhumane actions in the United Nations.

So when you say: “…but, Israel will nuke the whole middle east if it is going down…” That is all too likely a possibility.

Will our government stand by and be complicit in escalating this war that is being waged for domestic political reasons before an early Israeli election? Right now the Presidential spokespeople are saying that Israel has the right to determine its own military actions. Funny but they aren’t saying that about Syria or North Korea!

Here’s another timeline that refutes the idea that this started with the Palestinians shooting at the Israelis:

TIMELINE: Israel’s Latest Escalation in Gaza
IMEU, Nov 14, 2012http://imeu.net/news/article0023227.shtml
On Wednesday, November 14th, it was reported that Israel assassinated the leader of Hamas’ military wing, Ahmed Jabari, breaking a tentative truce with Palestinian fighters that had been in place since Monday. The truce followed an escalation in violence that began last Thursday in which 6 Palestinian civilians were killed, including three children, and more than 50 others injured.

The IMEU offers the following timeline of the recent violence and a link to an IMEU fact sheet on previous Israeli ceasefire violations.

– TIMELINE: ISRAEL’S LATEST ESCALATION IN GAZA –

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8

Following a two-week lull in violence, Israeli soldiers invade Gaza. In the resulting exchange of gunfire with Palestinian fighters, a 12-year-old boy is killed by an Israeli bullet while he plays soccer.

Shortly afterwards, Palestinian fighters blow up a tunnel along the Gaza-Israel frontier, injuring one Israeli soldier.

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 10

An anti-tank missile fired by Palestinian fighters wounds four Israeli soldiers driving in a jeep along the Israel-Gaza boundary.

An Israeli artillery shell lands in a soccer field in Gaza killing two children, aged 16 and 17. Later, an Israeli tank fires a shell at a tent where mourners are gathered for a funeral, killing two more civilians, and wounding more than two dozen others.

SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 11

One Palestinian civilian is killed and dozens more wounded in Israeli attacks. Four Israeli civilians are also injured as a result of projectiles launched from Gaza, according to the Israeli government.

During an Israeli government cabinet meeting, Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz urges the government to “cut off the head of the snake… take out the leadership of Hamas in Gaza.” He also calls for a cutting off of water, food, electricity, and fuel shipments to Gaza’s 1.7 million people.

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 12

Palestinian militant factions agree to a truce if Israel ends its attacks.

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14

Israel breaks two days of calm by assassinating Ahmed Jabari, the head of Hamas’ military wing. According to reports, at least eight other Palestinians are killed in Israeli attacks, including at least two children. Palestinian militant groups vow to respond.

In light of repeated, unanswered requests to Hamas to end firing rockets at Israeli civilian targets, what would you suggest other than stern retaliatory measures? You must consider, if you can’t admit that “Cutting of the head of the snake” is an approach offering far less colatteral damage to the surroundings the snake inhabits, than having to destroy the habitat.

Albert J. I don’t excuse you for your willful ignorance. The point of the timeline is that there was a truce between Hamas and the Israelis where no rockets were being fired and then they attacked and murdered several Palestinian civilians and assassinated the military leader of the democratically elected ruling party in Gaza. The rocket attacks were in response to those provocations. You obviously didn’t follow the links and read the entire timeline. You also didn’t bother to note that the person who was assassinated after two days of calm was the negotiating partner on the Palestinian side for a more permanent cease fire.

Be that as it may, and in spite of your foolish repetition of the illegal and entirely inhumane statement of Israeli Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz who urged the government to “cut off the head of the snake… take out the leadership of Hamas in Gaza.”And his further public calls for a cutting off of water, food, electricity, and fuel shipments to Gaza’s 1.7 million people. You seem to think that the people of Gaza should not be able to respond to more than 1,500 bomb and missile attacks on their captive and imprisoned population.

Why is it that you believe that only Israel has the right to respond to attacks when as of today there have been over 120 Palestinians killed, and more than 800 wounded while exactly 3 Israelis have been killed? To add insult to injury the US gives Israel more than $3 Billion per year in mostly military aid and ignores their illegal use of such weapons in contraindication to our Weapons Export Laws and International laws under the Geneva conventions dealing with occupied people.

But please hold any further comments because I’m writing a new article that will cover what’s been happening in Gaza more fully.

Note: The Times Union is not responsible for posts and comments written by non-staff members.

Women Against War:Supporting non-military ways of solving conflictsAbout us